Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
got a charge by PPC parking on a private road, got charge notice on car, got letter through to RK which i returned with template letter from here advising take it up with driver im RK, PPC have returned advising that shouldnt use template letters from here as not strictly accurate and doesnt constitute legal advice!! also references a case upmann vs elkan(1871) which should read 1971 i might add. which references a counterfeit goods case?!!!basically trying bully me into telling who was driving, by saying i have a "duty"
where would people go from here, i've told them i am RK and they need to take it up with driver, as far as im concerned thats my part done!
Hi! Do not worry. Its more nonsense and intimidation from a PPC. You have no obligation by law to tell them who the driver is. By them trying to use case law on you shows how desperate they are for your money!! Ignore from now on. Who is the PPC by the way?
If you believe that this post has helped in any way please click on the star to the left
I havent had any dealings with this PPC personally but perhaps a few of the other Caggers have. They may be able to tell you which DCA (s) they work with etc. However, as above,- ignore as if you continue to write they will think you are wavering into paying and hassle you even more.
If you believe that this post has helped in any way please click on the star to the left
"Summary.
Upmann were Cuban cigar manufacturers who found several counterfeit boxes of cigars marked with their brand. The cigars were found at St Catherine's Docks and consigned in the name of Elkan who were German forwarding agents and warehousemen. Elkan maintained that they did not realise that the goods were counterfeit. It was argued by Elkan that it was not possible to obtain an injunction against them as they had no knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the goods.
Decision
Lord Hatherley LC noted that this was effectively an appeal about costs and held that a duty was upon Elkan to give all the information they possibly could from the first moment possible to assist Upmann"
Did VCS issue you with a ticket for smoking whilst driving ?
haha i do see the ridiculousness of it but it would be nice if they just didnt bother me again. should i tell them get stuffed and send proof who was driving or just ignore them?
If you want them to go away, just ignore them. Whatever you do, they won't stop (they are only letters after all). If you contact them, their eyes will light up and possibly harrass you for longer.
"Summary.
Upmann were Cuban cigar manufacturers who found several counterfeit boxes of cigars marked with their brand. The cigars were found at St Catherine's Docks and consigned in the name of Elkan who were German forwarding agents and warehousemen. Elkan maintained that they did not realise that the goods were counterfeit. It was argued by Elkan that it was not possible to obtain an injunction against them as they had no knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the goods.
Decision
Lord Hatherley LC noted that this was effectively an appeal about costs and held that a duty was upon Elkan to give all the information they possibly could from the first moment possible to assist Upmann"
Did VCS issue you with a ticket for smoking whilst driving ?
Sam the Eagle
I think that says it all-really laughable and signs of pure desperation for your money by quoting case law that has absolutely no association with whats going on! Has anyone had anything similar or worse?
If you believe that this post has helped in any way please click on the star to the left
The significance of the case cited is that a defendant must take reasonable steps to help the claimant in a civil case.
So, if you were the registered keeper of a vehicle which received a pcn from a CIEO on private land, and were not the driver - what reasons could a reasonable person have for refusing to name the driver and to allow justice to take its course?
The significance of the case cited is that a defendant must take reasonable steps to help the claimant in a civil case.
So, if you were the registered keeper of a vehicle which received a pcn from a CIEO on private land, and were not the driver - what reasons could a reasonable person have for refusing to name the driver and to allow justice to take its course?
The right not to incriminate oneself or others.
That, and the lack of any statutory requirement to keep a record of the driver, let alone inform some random with a tin foil badge and photocopied law diploma.
The significance of the case cited is that a defendant must take reasonable steps to help the claimant in a civil case.
So, if you were the registered keeper of a vehicle which received a pcn from a CIEO on private land, and were not the driver - what reasons could a reasonable person have for refusing to name the driver and to allow justice to take its course?
The parking company is entitled to seek a court order requiring the RK to provide the information, but the parking company will need to pay the RK's defence costs, and would have, at the very least, to show that the RK had some level of responsibility for the driver's action.
In short it's an insurmountable hurdle for a small invoice, and therefore PPC bluster to suggest it is a requirement.
Since 100% of requests to PPCs to provide evidence relevant to their claims
are ignored, it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black (as my mum would say).
ahh a "Norwich Pharmacal Order". Beloved by Perky - that alone tells you how likely it is to be used. By used I mean here on earth in reality, not on the bizzaro world of PPCs.
So, if you were the registered keeper of a vehicle which received a pcn from a CIEO on private land, and were not the driver - what reasons could a reasonable person have for refusing to name the driver and to allow justice to take its course?
I don't understand this made up term of CIEO.
What on earth is one of those supposed to be and does Wayne think that by giving his invoice clerk's a made up title that sounds like the legally appointed CEOs we will be duped into believing they are official people like we think his PCNs pretending to be real council PCNs are? (or not)
PPC 2nd letter from them HELP!!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Al27
